The best kept secret in the food industry is its liberal use of the definition of a serving size. You’d think a serving size should reflect what the average person consumes, but it seems that many manufacturers are selling their products to smurfs, not humans. How else can you explain exactly 11 potato chips or half a cup of ice cream counting as a serving?

The FDA, it appears, is calling the bluff, and according to the New York Times,

is now looking at bringing serving sizes for foods like chips, cookies, breakfast cereals and ice cream into line with how Americans really eat. Combined with more prominent labeling, the result could be a greater sense of public caution about unhealthy foods. Read more…

The NY Times article also include four graphic examples of how wrong serving sizes distort people’s perception of the calories they will actually consume.

What you need to know:

The serving size is a regulated term required for presentation on the nutrition facts panel of packaged foods and beverages. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of the early 90’s mandated manufacturers to state the serving size of a product in both measurable amount (grams, fluid ounces, etc..) and consumer graspable terms (2 cookie, half a cup, 1 doughnut). The actual quantity of product per serving is based on outdated consumer surveys, before the era of super-sized meals, big-gulp drinks, and a-pint-at-a-sitting ice creams.

Many companies take advantage of this loophole to literally trick consumers into thinking they’ll be consuming less calories than what they actually do. Here’s a fun trick when you want to create a 100 calorie snack out of a 150 calorie serving – reduce the serving size from 3 to 2 cookies. Genius!

Most annoying are the single serving products that end up actually containing more than a single serving. For example – vending machine soft drinks that come in 20 fl oz bottle meant for a single person to consume, but actually composed of two and a half servings! Duane Reade’s potato chips single serve bag state that there are only 100 calories per serving. Careful examination shows a discrepancy where the serving is defined as 1 oz, but the bag is one an one third ounces, adding 34 more calories to the deal.

If the FDA does take action on this issue, it will be a godsend. We recently published a list of Ten fixes the FDA can require for nutrition labels, such as  getting rid of the silly health claims and stating amount of ADDED sugar. Out #1 request was for proper indication of serving sizes.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s not enough to check the calorie count per serving, you also need to make sure the serving size suggested by the manufacturer is what you really intend to consume. Be on the lookout especially with snacks and soft drinks, where the empty calories can easily double or triple before you even stop for your first breath of air.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its latest obesity statistics. The bottom line is that the number of overweight Americans seems to be “leveling off.” This does not mean obesity is over, far from it. It’s just the growth rate of the obesity epidemic seems to have substantially slowed down. And that’s good. Sort of.

Because how can it be “good” when the data is this:

• 34% of American adults age 20 and older are obese
• 68% were considered overweight or obese
• 31.7% of kids are obese or overweight

The numbers are from the National Center for Health Statistics, a unit of CDC.

The highest obesity growth rates occurred throughout the 80’s and 90’s. In the last decade the growth has slowed.

Though the Food industry may rejoice in these findings as proof that their “health foods” are helping consumers, there may be other explanations:

“Until we see rates improving, not just staying the same, we can’t have any confidence that our lifestyle has improved,” said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital Boston.

Dr. Ludwig said the plateau might just suggest that “we’ve reached a biological limit” to how obese people could get. When people eat more, he said, at first they gain weight; then a growing share of the  calories go “into maintaining and moving around that excess tissue,” he continued, so that “a population doesn’t keep getting heavier and heavier indefinitely.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ludwig said, “it could be that most of the people who are genetically susceptible, or susceptible for psychological or behavioral reasons, have already become obese.” read entire New York Times article...

Whatever the reason is, we still have a ginormous task ahead of us. Obesity is a disease that shortens lives, can lead to heart disease, diabetes, and an assortment of other medical conditions. It eats up almost 10% of medical spending in this country – a whopping $147 Billion in 2008!

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

If you’ve been following this blog, you know we preach to ditch soft drinks in favor of plain old water. But not the expensive bottled water. From the faucet – tap water. Water is healthy because it has no extra calories, no artificial colorings, and no preservatives or additives. And it takes a weight off of your wallet – the savings for an average American family of 4 that quits soft drinks are over $500 a year.

And for most western world locations, tap water is absolutely safe, we reported in the past. That’s why we were so upset to read The New York Times story about toxicity in American tap water:

• The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974 and required monitoring of 20 dangerous chemicals.
• The list of toxins grew to 91 by the late 1990’s.
• It is still miserably short when one considers the SIXTY THOUSAND chemicals that are used in this country, hundreds of which are known carcinogens and many of which have found their way into our water systems.
• Tens of millions of people could be affected by multiple contaminants in their drinking water.
• The EPA says that very long studies are needed to verify the effects, but even then it’s hard to determine causality because pollution is also in the air we breath, food we eat, our clothes, toys, homes, and pretty much everywhere.

The Times article is part of a series called Toxic Waters, a frightening and interesting read.

What you need to know:

So we must drink bottled water, right?

Not so fast.

Where do you think all the bottled water comes from? Many bottlers take their water from the same sources as municipal tap. True, they filter it, but do you think they do more testing for toxins than the minimum they should by law? Not!

Large public water supplies are tested for contaminants up to several times a day. But the FDA requires bottlers to test their water just once a month or year.

And bottled water is stored in plastics that leach out PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, another carcinogen. Not to mention the huge environmental impact of billions of plastic bottles polluting our planet.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you’re debating between tap and bottled water, you’re already in a good place, not drinking soft drinks. Many people choose bottled water because they have gotten used to the taste. Before you commit yourself one way or the other, check out your local water supply safety reports. You can also opt for home purifying and filtering systems.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Yesterday we wrote about the FDA’s plan to refresh nutrition labels and made several of our own suggestions. In parallel, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer watchdog organization, published its own set of recommendations. They’ve done a great job, including some very cool graphics. You can download their 2 page report here [PDF]. Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times also has a good summary.

Some of CSPI’s recommendations include:

1. Putting calorie and serving size information in larger type at the top of the label so it’s immediately clear how much you are eating. To that, we would add listing the entire calorie content of a package soa person doesn’t have to do the math.

2. Making the ingredient list easier to read by printing it in regular type instead of all capital letters. Use bullets to separate ingredients rather than allowing them to all run together. This is a good point – consumers have a hard time just reading what’s in the box, let alone trying to understand it.

3. Listing similar ingredients together and show the percentage by weight. For instance, sugar, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup and grape juice concentrate are all forms of sugar and should be listed in parenthesis under the catchall heading “sugars.”

4. Using red labeling and the word “high” when a product has more than 20 percent of the daily recommendation for fats, sugars, sodium or cholesterol. This is a good idea, but we think focusing on sodium, sugar, and saturated fats should be enough. Not all fats are bad, and avocados, high in healthy fats, would be reprimanded in vain.

5. Displaying prominently the percentage of whole grains contained in a product – This is important because many times a bread or pasta will boast “multi-grain” or “whole-grain” when only a small percent of the wheat used is whole, and the rest is plain white flour, devoid of fiber and other nutrients.

What to do at the supermarket:

Until the FDA actually does something, we still have a while to go. In the meantime, shop around the perimeter of the supermarket, look for products with short ingredient lists,  and when in doubt, ask us.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Diabetics, like air force pilots when flying, need to be slightly paranoid. Always on the lookout for potential danger. But whereas a flight ends after several hours in the skies, a diabetic must be in constant awareness of blood sugar levels.

An article in the New York Times touts vinegar, of all foods, as a potential aid in the battle for low blood sugar. Adding vinegar to your dinner

… seems to help slow the absorption of sugar from a meal into the bloodstream, apparently because vinegar helps block digestive enzymes that convert carbohydrates into sugar. read more…

What you need to know:

The word “vinegar” derives from the Old French vin aigre, which literally means sour wine. It is made by fermentation of wine/beer/cider/fruit juice/other and creates a highly acidic liquid that has been used in kitchens across the globe for ages.  The acetic acid in vinegar is what gives vinegar its pungent smell and strong acidic flavor.

A study in Italy found that healthy people who ate a meal with an addition of said acetic acid versus a control group that did not, had a lower level of glycemic response. The 4 teaspoons of vinegar was added as a salad dressing together with olive oil.

Diabetics can try for themselves to see if vinegar helps, according to Sue McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the American Diabetic Association.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Connecticut’s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, is not happy with the Smart Choices front of package labeling system. He too cannot understand how such a system, designed to help consumer choose healthier foods allows Froot Loops to be considered nutritious. He wrote on Wednesday to several large food manufacturers participating in the program that he was concerned it was “overly simplistic, inaccurate and ultimately misleading.”

“As a matter of common sense, these sugar-laden or fat-saturated products seem very questionable as so-called ‘Smart Choices’ nutritionally,” Mr. Blumenthal said. “We’re ratcheting up pressure for truthful answers to these issues.”

The Connecticut investigation will seek to determine if the labeling campaign violates the state’s consumer protection law, which bars misleading or false product claims, he added. read more…

This is not surprising. In fact several other state attorneys may be joining this investigation in order to protect their constituents from marketing “fraud”.

Froot Loops, for reference, contains 3 teaspoons of added sugar, trans fat, and several different artificial colors. If there was any doubt, it contains zero fruit.

What to do at the supermarket:

Our best advice is to count “Smart Choices” as just another marketing claim, rather than objective health information. As such, simply ignore it. Always read the nutrition label and ingredients list to get the facts. When it comes to cereals, you’ll want to see a low sugar count (6 grams per serving or less) and a high fiber count (5 grams and up) from whole grains.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

The New York Times ran a great article yesterday on the “Smart Choices” front of label food benchmarking system. We’ve posted several articles on Smart Choices and nutrition labeling in the past few months, as there are more than 15 different systems vying to become a standard.

The Times article points to the types of products endorsed by the Smart Choices Program, a consortium of food corporations and nutrition experts. Froot Loops and Fudgsicles make the grade. The criteria for choosing which products are a smart choice have been formulated by companies who paid fees of $100,000 to become members. You can easily understand how this creates a conflict of interest – more revenue vs. consumer wellbeing.

Most irritating, though, is how a prominent nutrition expert, Eileen T. Kennedy, dean of Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University AND also president of the Smart Choices board rationalizes the conflict of interest:

[she said that] the program’s criteria were based on government dietary guidelines and widely accepted nutritional standards.

The nutritional standards may be widely accepted by the food industry, but many dietitians do not support them. In fact, if you’ll ask a dietitan about sugary cereals such as Froot Loops, a vast majority will tell you that they are definitely not a smart choice.

She said the program was also influenced by research into consumer behavior. That research showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them.

“The checkmark means the food item is a ‘better for you’ product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ‘Don’t eat this,’ ” Dr. Kennedy said. “Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn’t have the checkmark, by implication it’s not a ‘better for you’ product. They want to have a choice. They don’t want to be told ‘You must do this.’ ”

This is inaccurate. In the UK, consumers are very happy with the traffic light system, which marks a product with 4 “lights” for 4 nutrients to limit – fat, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. If a negative nutrient in the product is above a certain value, it gets a red light. If it is barely present, it’ll get a green light. If its presence is in the middle – yellow.

The problem with traffic lights lies with food manufacturers who hate to see red signs on their products. They know people won’t buy them. And they are fighting to get them removed.

Dr. Kennedy, who is not paid for her work on the program, defended the products endorsed by the program, including sweet cereals. She said Froot Loops was better than other things parents could choose for their children.

Unlike many nutrition experts working for the big food corporations, Dr. Kennedy is not on big food’s payroll. She apparently has no personal conflict of interest, and she is a very respected member of the nutrition and health community. That’s why her quote below seems totally irrational:

“You’re rushing around, you’re trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal,” Dr. Kennedy said, evoking a hypothetical parent in the supermarket. “So Froot Loops is a better choice.”

Perhaps Dr. Kennedy has given up on trying to change the way America eats, and is acknowledging that parents need to choose the lesser of two evils. But is that where moms and dads in this great nation should be – choosing between two sugar spiking starts to a day?

Come on Professor – you are educating the next generations of diet and nutrition professionals. What will you tell your students? That they should recommend Froot Loops to their clients?

There has to be a better solution. And we’re looking up to experts like you to help us find them. Please, reconsider what you recommend to recommend.

What to do at the supermarket:

As Dr. Kennedy said, consumers are smart enough.

So please, disregard the Smart Choice label. And the others as well.

By buying minimally processed foods such as produce, lean meats, bulk legumes, and low fat dairy, you won’t have to read too many labels.

And when you do buy a processed product, head straight to the nutrition facts label and the ingredient list.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Some shoppers may have noticed lately that packages of Frito-Lay brand potato chips, Doritos, Cheetos, and Tostitos are bigger than they used to be. It’s hard to miss, especially when the one on Tostitos says: ”Hey! There’s 20 percent more free fun to share in here!”

That’s 20% more calories, fat, and sodium too.

The price, though, hasn’t changed. Why would a manufacturer want to give us this gift?

The New York Times explains:

Think of your food packages like an economic barometer: Times are tough, so costs are low and packages are bigger. When times are good, costs are high and packages, to compensate, get smaller.

Tough times also mean consumers have less money to spend, so they want those bigger packages. Experts say this is a promotional tool that helps branded food companies steer shoppers back to their products and away from less expensive, store-brand alternatives.

What you need to know:

Last year, as commodity prices were going through the roof, manufacturers had a dilemma – should they raise prices to remain profitable? The answer was no. Instead, they sneakily reduced the amount of product and employed a grocery shrink ray to reduce the package size. Packaged items from Red Bull to chicken wings to peanut butter were secretly shrunk, and consumers were unknowingly paying more per ounce of food / beverage.

Now that commodity prices are way down and consumers are pinching pennies, it’s time to reverse the shrink ray and start to buff up those packages. Lowering prices would be great for us, but food companies are afraid that it would devalue their brand and cause problems in the future when they’ll want to raise prices again.

While last year’s shrink ray was hush hush, this year’s good deeds of package growth should not go unheard right? You betcha, and that’s why all the XYZ-os are labeled with the “20% more” marketing message.

Thanks food manufacturers, for being dishonest with us last year, and for stuffing us with even more of you unhealthy snacks this year.

At least one thing hasn’t changed – the serving size – a laughable 11 chips. Yes, that’s right, what people wolf down between opening the bag to pouring its contents into a serving bowl. But we’ll talk about serving sizes in another post.

What to do at the supermarket:

Some supermarkets let you easily compare product prices by reading shelf tags with price per oz / fl oz. This is a very helpful tool.

But even more helpful to you will be to cut down on the amount of processed snacks you purchase, and direct the savings to more natural options like fresh fruits, dried fruits, and nuts.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

photo credit: Patrishe

Have your children seen an ad for fresh apples lately? How about a commercial for yams or carrots?

Probably not.

But they most likely have seen lots of advertisements for candy, soft drinks, sugary cereals, and other processed food like substances.

And what they see, they immediately turn into action. At least, this is what a study from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale has concluded. From the New York Times:

In one experiment, 118 children, ages 7 to 11, were each given bowls of Goldfish crackers and then left to watch a 14-minute cartoon. During the commercial breaks, some of the children saw ads for games and entertainment; others watched four spots for unhealthy snacks like waffle sticks with syrup, fruit roll-ups and potato chips. The children who saw the food spots ate 45 percent more Goldfish than those who watched the game commercials.

What you need to know:

It’s an uphill battle for parents today to try and keep their children eating healthfully. Food manufacturers are not making things easy.  Tens of thousands of nutritiously superfluous products manufactured for kids,  and the big brands spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising to those eyeballs that count the most.

Some parents have decided to live TV free. Others Tivo commercials away. But for the most part, our impressionable younger generation is learning what to eat from brand marketers on Madison Avenue.

What to do at the supermarket:

You need to start educating your children from a very early age about healthy eating habits. Definitely provide snacks and sweets, but in moderation.

You also need to explain that not everything on TV is  true, and when it comes to advertising, there are motives present not necessarily in the best interest of the consumer.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

In the past 30 years the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has gone up 40%. At the same time, the cost of soft drinks has gone down by over 30%. The graph below is taken from a New York Times article discussing a proposed soda tax. (The tax of a few pennies on sugary drinks will supposedly lower consumption and help the government implement various health plans.)

At least part of the price reduction can be attributed to high fructose corn syrup, which entered the market in the 1980’s. HFCS costs beverage manufacturers half the price of sugar.

What to do at the supermarket:

Although the price of eating healthy has gone up, here are a few suggestions:

1. Drink tap water – Stop buying and drinking soft drinks. A family of 4 will save $500 a year! Not to mention a nice drop in weight…

2. Buy frozen fruits and vegetables – instead of paying a premium for fresh produce shipped from the other side of the world, you get a product that retains the same levels of vitamins as fresh, and sometimes even more than “fresh” produce that has been traveling around for 3 weeks. Canned is also an option, but watch for added sugar or sodium.

3. Buy in season – tomatoes and blueberries will always be cheap in the summer. For off season – see #2.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com